AFRL-RX-TY-TR-2008-4522 THE HYDROXYL RADICAL REACTION RATE CONSTANT AND PRODUCTS OF DIMETHYL SUCCINATE Sheryl E. Calidonna and William R. Bradley Applied Research Associates P.O. Box 40128 Tyndall AFB, FL 32403 Michael V. Henley and J. Raymond Wells Air Force Research Laboratory MARCH 2008 Final Report for 15 December 1999 – 14 August 2007
DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT A: Approved for public release; distribution unlimited.
AIRBASE TECHNOLOGIES DIVISION MATERIALS AND MANUFACTURING DIRECTORATE AIR FORCE RESEARCH LABORATORY AIR FORCE MATERIEL COMMAND 139 BARNES DRIVE, SUITE 2 TYNDALL AIR FORCE BASE, FL 32403-5323
NOTICE AND SIGNATURE PAGE Using Government drawings, specifications, or other data included in this document for any purpose other than Government procurement does not in any way obligate the U.S. Government. The fact that the Government formulated or supplied the drawings, specifications, or other data does not license the holder or any other person or corporation; or convey any rights or permission to manufacture, use, or sell any patented invention that may relate to them. This report was cleared for public release by the Air Force Research Laboratory, Materials and Manufacturing Directorate, Airbase Technologies Division, Public Affairs and is available to the general public, including foreign nationals. Copies may be obtained from the Defense Technical Information Center (DTIC) (http://www.dtic.mil). REPORT NUMBER AFRL-RX-TY-TR-2008-4522 HAS BEEN REVIEWED AND IS APPROVED FOR PUBLICATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH ASSIGNED DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT. ___//signature//_________________________ ___//signature//_________________________ MICHAEL V. HENLEY DANIEL M. SAUCER, Major, USAF Work Unit Manager Chief, Airbase Sciences Branch ___//signature//_________________________ ALBERT N. RHODES, Ph.D. Acting Chief, Airbase Technologies Division This report is published in the interest of scientific and technical information exchange, and its publication does not constitute the Government’s approval or disapproval of its ideas or findings.
Standard Form 298 (Rev. 8/98)
REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE
Prescribed by ANSI Std. Z39.18
Form Approved OMB No. 0704-0188
The public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to Department of Defense, Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports (0704-0188), 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302. Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it does not display a currently valid OMB control number. PLEASE DO NOT RETURN YOUR FORM TO THE ABOVE ADDRESS. 1. REPORT DATE (DD-MM-YYYY) 2. REPORT TYPE 3. DATES COVERED (From - To)
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 5a. CONTRACT NUMBER
5b. GRANT NUMBER
5c. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER
5d. PROJECT NUMBER
5e. TASK NUMBER
5f. WORK UNIT NUMBER
6. AUTHOR(S)
7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NUMBER
9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 10. SPONSOR/MONITOR'S ACRONYM(S)
11. SPONSOR/MONITOR'S REPORT NUMBER(S)
12. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT
13. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
14. ABSTRACT
15. SUBJECT TERMS
16. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF: a. REPORT b. ABSTRACT c. THIS PAGE
17. LIMITATION OF ABSTRACT
18. NUMBER OF PAGES
19a. NAME OF RESPONSIBLE PERSON
19b. TELEPHONE NUMBER (Include area code)
ii
(Continued from SF 298, Block 14.) observed as a secondary product being formed at a rate of (4.6 ± 1.3) x 1014 molecules second-1, 60 minutes after initiating the OH + DMS reaction. Formic acid is believed to be a degradation product of the primary product, methyl glyoxylate (MG, CH3OC(=O)C(=O)H). Product formation pathways are discussed in light of current understanding of the atmospheric chemistry of oxygenated organic compounds.
iii
PREFACE This is the final report in a series of reports accomplished under this work unit. The report
describes work conducted to determine the kinetics and products of the gas-phase hydroxyl
radical reaction with dimethyl succinate. Additional reports and publications resulting from
this work unit are not described herein but are listed below for reference. Baxley, J.Steven and J.R. Wells, “The Hydroxyl Radical Rate Constant and Atmospheric Transforamtion of 2-Butanol and 2-Pentanol,” AFRL-ML-TY-TP-2000-4509, Apr 1998, Air Force Research Laboratory, Airbase & Environmental Technology Division.
Henley, M.V., W.R. Bradley, S.E. Wyatt, G.M. Graziano and J.R. Wells, “Atmospheric Transformation of Volatile Organic Compounds,” in Chemical and Biological Sensing, Patrick J. Gardner, Editor, Proceedings of SPIE Vol. 4036, 24-30 (2000).
Bradley, W.R., S.E. Wyatt, J.R. Wells, M.V. Henley and G.M. Graziano, “The Hydroxyl Radical Reaction Rate Constant and Products of Cyclohexanol,” Int. J. Chem. Kinet, 33, 108-117 (2001).
Henley, M.V., R.M. Weber and S.E. Wyatt, “Evaluation of Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from High Explosive Formulations,” AFRL-ML-TY-TR-2002-4534, May 2002, Air Force Research Laboratory, Air Expeditionary Forces Technologies Division. Henley, M.V., G.M. Graziano, M.A. Kovalchek, R.M. Weber and S.E. Wyatt, “Atmospheric Chemistry of Acetoin,” AFRL-ML-TY-TR-2002-4535, May 2002, Air Force Research Laboratory, Air Expeditionary Forces Technologies Division (limited document). Henley, M.V. and R.M. Weber, “Evaluation of Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Line-X XS-350 Polymer Coating,” AFRL-ML-TY-TR-2002-4608, November 2002, Air Force Research Laboratory, Air base Technologies Division. Henley, M.V., R.M. Weber and S.E. Wyatt, “Evaluation of Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from the Preparation and Application of BoeGel-EP II,” AFRL-ML-TY-TR-2002-4609, November 2002, Air Force Research Laboratory, Air base Technologies Division. Renard, J.J., S.E. Wyatt and M.V. Henley, “Fate of ammonia in the atmosphere––a review for applicability to hazardous releases,” Journal of Hazardous Materials, 108: 1-2: 29-60, 2004.
iv
Renard, J.J., S.E. Wyatt and M.V. Henley, “Fate of ammonia in the atmosphere––a review for applicability to hazardous releases,” AFRL-ML-TY-TP-2003-4541, January 2004, Air Force Research Laboratory, Airbase Technologies Division (postprint J Haz Mat., 2004, 108, 29-60). Henley, Mike, Sheryl Calidonna and Jean Renard, “Atmospheric Kinetics for Toxic Industrial Compounds (TICs),” AFRL-ML-TY-TP-2005-4563, Jun 2006, Air Force Research Laboratory, Airbase Technologies Division. Bradley, W.R., S.E. Wyatt, J.R. Wells, M.V. Henley and G.M. Graziano, “The Hydroxyl Radical Reaction Rate Constant and Products of Cyclohexanol,” AFRL-RX-TY-TP-2008-4525, Mar 2008, Air Force Research Laboratory, Airbase Technologies Division. (postprint Int. J. Chem. Kinet, 2001, 33, 108).
Henley, M.V., W.R. Bradley, S.E. Wyatt, G.M. Graziano and J.R. Wells, “Atmospheric Transformation of Volatile Organic Compounds,” AFRL-ML-TY-TP-2000-4529, Mar 2008, Air Force Research Laboratory, Airbase Technologies Division (postprint SPIE, 2000, 4036, 24).
v
SUMMARY
The objective of this report is to document the study of the gas-phase reaction of the
hydroxyl radical (OH) with dimethyl succinate (DMS, CH3OC(=O)CH2CH2C(=O)OCH3).
With the increased usage of oxygenatated organic compounds in paints and paint strippers
as replacements for regulated volatile organic carbon containing-solvents and in fuels to
promote better combustion, a better understanding of their environmental impact to the
atmosphere is necessary. Previous studies of the products from OH + oxygenated organic
reactions have illustrated the complexity of their atmospheric reaction mechanisms.
Detailed studies of the reaction kinetics and products are needed to support hydroxyl radical
reaction mechanism patterns based on structure-activity relationships (SAR) which are used
to determine environmental impact.
The relative rate technique was used to examine the kinetics for the gas-phase
reaction of OH + DMS. In these experiments the OH radical was generated from the
photolysis of methyl nitrite in the presence of DMS, nitric oxide and a reference organic
compound having a published rate constant for reaction with OH. The loss of DMS relative
to the loss of the reference was used to determine the DMS rate constant. The measured rate
constant was (1.5 ± 0.4) x 10-12 cm3 molecule-1 s-1 at 297 ± 3 oK and 1 atmosphere total
pressure. This is in agreement with the predicted value of 1.15 x 10-12 cm3 molecule-1 s-1
determined by SAR.
To more clearly define DMS’s atmospheric degradation mechanism, the products of
the OH + DMS reaction were also investigated. The only primary product detected was
mono methyl succinate (MMS, CH3OC(=O)CH2CH2C(=O)OH)) at a yield of only
vi
2.17 ± 0.25%. Extensive efforts were used to identify other primary products but none
were measured. Formic acid (HC(=O)OH ); however, was observed as a secondary product
being formed at a rate of (4.6 ± 1.3) x 1014molecules second-1, 60 minutes after initiating
the OH + DMS reaction. Formic acid is believed to be a degradation product of the primary
product, methyl glyoxylate (MG, CH3OC(=O)C(=O)H). Product formation pathways are
discussed in light of current understanding of the atmospheric chemistry of oxygenated
organic compounds.
vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PREFACE...............................................................................................................................iii
SUMMARY.............................................................................................................................v
TABLE OF CONTENTS.......................................................................................................vii
LIST OF FIGURES ..............................................................................................................viii
1.0 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................1
2.0 EXPERIMENTAL METHODS.........................................................................................2
2.1 Apparatus and Materials.................................................................................................2
2.2 Experimental Procedures................................................................................................6
3.0 RESULTS ..........................................................................................................................8
3.1 OH + DMS Reaction Rate Constant...............................................................................8
3.2 OH + DMS Reaction Products .......................................................................................9
3.3 Mono Methyl Succinate (MMS, CH3OC(=O)CH2CH2C(=O)OH)...............................11
3.4 Formic Acid (FA, HOC(=O)H) ....................................................................................15
3.5 Nitrate/Nitrite Products................................................................................................15
4.0 DISCUSSION..................................................................................................................17
Acknowledgment ....................................................................................................................20
5.0 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................21
viii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Dimethyl succinate reaction with methyl ethyl ketone and diethyl ketone...........10
Figure 2. Plot of monomethyl succinate formed versus DMS reacted ..................................12
Figure 3. Formic acid formation over time...........................................................................16
Figure 4. Proposed reaction mechanism for hydroxyl radical with dimethyl succinate........20
1
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Oxygenated organic compounds are being used in paints and paint strippers as
replacements for regulated VOC solvents. Oxygenated organics are also being used in fuels
to promote better combustion, increase octane rating, reduce the production of carbon
monoxide and reduce photochemically active volatile exhaust emissions. With the increased
usage of these compounds, a better understanding of their environmental impact is
necessary. While several hydroxyl radical (OH) + oxygenated organic bimolecular rate
constants are well known, details pertaining to the reaction mechanisms are limited. The
few completed studies of the products from OH + oxygenated organic reactions have
illustrated the complexity of their atmospheric reaction mechanisms [1–5]. These details are
needed to support hydroxyl radical reaction mechanism patterns based on structure–activity
relationships (SAR) which are used to determine environmental impact [6].
The newly revised ozone (O3) and particulate matter regulations of the Clean Air Act
Amendments have placed a greater emphasis on understanding detailed atmospheric
mechanisms of oxygenated organic compounds. While not emitted directly, O3 is a by-
product of the photooxidation of volatile organic compounds [7]. Thus, sources that
contribute to O3 formation in the troposphere, either directly or indirectly, are or could be
regulated. Currently, the reactivity models used to calculate a compound’s incremental
reactivity incorporate educated assumptions about a compound’s unknown atmospheric
mechanism [8]. In order to minimize uncertainties and calculate a compound’s incremental
reactivity more accurately, the rate constant and the transformation mechanism of that
2
compound must be well understood. This need has been demonstrated in a recent paper by
Bergin et al. [9]
As a side benefit, understanding the compounds’ atmospheric mechanisms in detail
can provide a basis for chemical selection based on structure. There is the possibility of
synthesizing new compounds that incorporate environmentally and technically beneficial
molecular structures. The information gained from the type of research presented here can
lead to more beneficial use of these and similar compounds in the future.
Dimethyl succinate (DMS, CH3OC(=O)CH2CH2C(=O)OCH3) is one of a series of
oxygenated organics present in consumer product formulations as a possible substitute
solvent. In the work presented here, the rate constant of OH + DMS was measured by the
relative rate method [10]. The products of the OH + DMS reaction are also reported and
used to derive the DMS atmospheric reaction mechanism. The reaction mechanism for
DMS has not been reported previously.
2.0 EXPERIMENTAL METHODS
2.1 Apparatus and Materials.
Experiments to measure the gas-phase rate constant and transformation products of
the OH + dimethyl succinate (DMS, CH3OC(=O)CH2CH2C(=O)OCH3) reaction were
conducted with a previously described apparatus [1, 11,12]. A brief description is provided
here. Reactants were introduced and samples were withdrawn through a 6.4-mm Swagelok
fitting attached to a 100-L, 2-mil FEP Teflon®-film bag. The filler system was equipped
with a syringe injection port facilitating the introduction of both liquid and gaseous
3
reactants into the bag by a flowing airstream. The syringe injection port was heated to insure
DMS vaporization (200 °C boiling point). Dry compressed air was used as the diluent to the
reaction bag and measured with a 0–100 L-min-1 mass flow controller. All reactant
mixtures and calibration standards were generated by this system. Irradiations were carried
out in a light-tight chamber with the bag surrounded by the following mix of lamps: six
Philips TL40W/03; one GE F40BL; two QPANEL UV351 and seven QPANEL UV340.
This lamp mixture approximates solar radiation from 300 to 450 nm. The entire reaction
chamber was maintained at 25 °C.
Kinetic experiments were quantitatively monitored using a Hewlett–Packard (HP)
gas chromatograph (GC) 5890 with a flame ionization detector (GC/FID) or a mass
selective detector (GC/MS) and HP series ChemStation™ software. Gas samples for both
detectors were cryogenically collected on a Hastelloy C sample loop (1.3 mL) and injected
onto the GC column (Restek Rtx-1 or Stabilwax column (0.53 mm i.d., 30 m, 1.0 μm film
thickness)) with a heated rotary valve [13]. The GC/FID temperature program used was as
follows: 35oC for 5 minutes then 10oC/min to 130oC and held for 5 minutes then 20oC/min
to 200oC and held for one minute. The GC/MS temperature program used was as follows:
35oC for 5 minutes then 10oC/min to 255oC and held for one minute. Helium (UHP grade),
the carrier gas, was supplied by Air Products and used as received.
Product identification experiments were accomplished with a HP 5890 Series II Plus
GC/ HP 5971 mass selective detector/HP 5965B infrared detector (GC/MS/FTIR) system.
The mass selective detector was tuned using perfluorotributylamine (FC-43). Full-scan
electron impact ionization spectra were collected from 25 to 220 mass units. The infrared
detector (GC/MS/FTIR) was operated at 8 cm -1 resolution with four scans averaged to give
4
a single IR spectrum every 1.5 seconds. Preliminary compound identifications from the
GC/MS/FTIR data sets were made by searching the Wiley/NBS Mass Spectra Library and
the EPA vapor library. Pure samples of the identified products, if available, were then
analyzed to check for matching spectra (MS and FTIR) and retention times. Compound
separation was achieved using the same chromatographic parameters of the GC/MS as
described above.
To determine carbonyl compounds produced by the gas-phase reaction of OH +
DMS, 10 liters of chamber content were flowed over 2,4-dinitrophenylhydrazine (DNPH)
impregnated cartridges. Hydrazones formed by derivatization were separated and
quantitatively measured by HPLC (HP 1050) using a three-component gradient solvent
program and UV detection as described previously [14].
Due to the very low number of products and their low yields for OH + DMS found
using the instruments listed above, a ThermoQuest Trace 2000 Series GC in series with a
GCQ Plus MS/MS, new to this laboratory, was implemented to try and identify fragments of
product fragments. The MS/MS feature could lend insight to the primary products of OH +
DMS that were not being seen by traditional methods. Gas samples from a 100-L Teflon®
bag were collected cryogenically as described above. Approximately 1.3-mL samples were
directly delivered to the mass spectrometer electron ionization (EI) source through a
0.18 mm ID x 5 m length of Restek Hydroguard FS guard column using the GCQ diffusion
pump, which provided a vacuum of 10-3 Pa (10-5 Torr). In the EI source, a beam of
electrons, maintained at a negative potential of -70V relative to the ion volume, transferred
the formed ions into the mass analyzer using three ion-focusing lenses.
5
Drawn by a DC offset voltage (-10V positive/+10V negative polarity mode) the ions
entered the mass analyzer where a ring electrode between the endcaps was ramped from low
to high voltage causing ions of greater mass-to-charge ratios to become unstable, thus
creating collision induced dissociation. These product ions were ejected from the mass
analyzer, through the exit lens, and focused toward the ion detection system. The ion
detector used was a high-sensitivity, off-axis system that included a 15-kV conversion
dynode and a continuous-dynode electron multiplier.
In all identification experiments, the GCQ was operated in the positive ion mode
using both scanning (MS) and collision-induced dissociation (MS/MS) methods. For
MS/MS experiments, the particles were ionized at >1 eV (determined during real-time) with
a scan range of 35–250 m/z.
Hydroxyl radical, the primary oxidizing radical in the atmosphere, was generated
from the photolysis of methyl nitrite (CH3ONO) in the presence of nitric oxide (NO) in air
[10].
CH3ONO + hν → CH3O + NO (1)
CH3O + O2 → CH2O + HO2 (2)
ΗΟ2 + ΝΟ → OH + ΝΟ2 (3)
CH3ONO was prepared in gram quantities using the method of Taylor et al. [15] and stored
in a lecture bottle at room temperature. The CH3ONO purity (>95%) was verified by
GC/MS/FTIR.
All other compounds were used as received. Dimethyl succinate (99%) was
purchased from Du Pont Chemicals. Chem Service supplied diethyl ketone (98%). Methyl
ethyl ketone (99+%) and monomethyl succinate (95%) were received from Aldrich. Fisher
6
Scientific produced the methanol and acetonitrile (HPLC Grade). Water was distilled,
deionized to 18 megaohm, and filtered using a Milli-Q® filter system. Dinitrophenyl-
hydrazone (DNPH) standards were purchased from Radian Corporation. Nitric oxide
(5000 ppm) was obtained from Matheson Gases. Experiments were carried out at
297 ± 3 oK and atmospheric pressure.
2.2 Experimental Procedures
The experimental procedures for determining the OH + DMS reaction kinetics were
similar to those described previously [11, 12].
OH + DMS ⎯⎯⎯ →⎯ DMSkProducts (4)
Reference + OH ⎯⎯ →⎯ RkProducts (5)
The rate equations for reactions (4) and (5) are combined and integrated resulting in the
following equation:
⎟⎟⎠
⎞⎜⎜⎝
⎛⎟⎟⎠
⎞⎜⎜⎝
⎛
t
0
t
0
[R][R]
ln = [DMS][DMS]
ln R
DMS
kk
I
If reaction with OH is the only removal mechanism for DMS and reference, a plot of
ln([DMS]0/[DMS]t) versus ln ([R]0/[R]t) yields a straight line with an intercept of zero.
Multiplying the slope of this linear plot by kR yields kDMS. The OH rate constant experiments
for DMS employed the use of two reference compounds, diethyl ketone (DEK) and methyl
ethyl ketone (MEK). The use of two reference compounds with different OH rate constants,
one faster and one slower than the expected rate constant for DMS, more definitively assured
the accuracy of the OH + DMS rate constant and provided evidence that other reactions were
not involved in DMS removal from the system.
7
For rate constant determination, the typical concentrations of the pertinent species in
the 100-L Teflon® bag were 4.4 – 7.3 ppm DMS, 3.5–5.5 ppm reference, 40 ppm CH3ONO,
and 2 ppm NO in air. The bag was sampled for initial species concentration ([X0]) and then
irradiated for 45, 75, 105, and 135 seconds. These initial and irradiated mixtures were
allowed to stand for 30–60 minutes before samples were collected on a cryogenic (-100 °C)
sample loop (described above) for 4 minutes at 25 mL min-1 and then flash injected (300 °C)
onto the GC column [13]. The combined total photolysis time was approximately 360
seconds, which resulted in 30% loss of DMS, 35 % loss of DEK, and 20% loss of MEK.
The flame ionization detector (FID) signal or total ion chromatogram (TIC) was used to
quantify DMS and reference compound concentrations.
The technique for identification of OH + DMS reaction products was similar to the
experimental methods and parameters for kinetic experiments except that the reference
compound was excluded from the reaction mixture and the DMS concentration was
approximately doubled (6.9–7.7 ppm). The irradiation intervals were the same as in the
kinetic experiments so that total DMS loss was less than 50%. These conditions are
favorable for ascertainment of products from OH attack at a single site on the DMS
molecule. Excessive irradiation may lead to consecutive OH attack at several sites, which
could result in false product identification. The mass selective detector (MS and MS/MS)
and infrared detector (FTIR) were used for product determination.
All measurements were at least duplicated. A relative standard deviation (the data
set standard deviation divided by the data set average) of approximately 2.5% was achieved
with the described sampling method. Several interference experiments were conducted to
assure the validity of the OH rate constant and product identification. They consisted of
8
looking for possible chromatographic co-elution of methyl nitrite, NO, reference, DMS and
the hydroxyl radical reaction products. Two experiments were conducted to determine the
stability of the reference and DMS co-existing in the same bag. First the reference and
DMS were injected into the bag, quantified, photolyzed for 10 minutes and re-quantified.
Second methyl nitrite, NO, reference and DMS were injected into the bag, quantified, left to
sit overnight and then re-quantified. None of these preliminary experiments yielded
chromatographic peak overlaps or observable reactions occurring without photoinitiation.
The results showed that no significant wall interaction took place. At the end of each run,
the Teflon® bag was cleaned by flushing six times with air containing <0.1 ppm total
hydrocarbon. Measurements of an air-filled bag showed no cross contamination between
runs.
3.0 RESULTS
3.1 OH + DMS Reaction Rate Constant
The OH rate constant for dimethyl succinate (DMS,
CH3OC(=O)CH2CH2C(=O)OCH3) was obtained using the relative rate method described
above. Typically five experimental runs were conducted on each DMS/reference pair. The
plot of a modified version of equation I is shown in Figure 1. The ln([R]0/[R]t) term is
divided by the respective reference rate constant (methyl ethyl ketone (MEK) (1.15 ± 0.29)
x 10-12 cm3 molecule-1 s-1 and diethyl ketone (DEK) (2.0 ± 0.5) x 10-12 cm3 molecule-1 s-1)
[16] and multiplied by 10-12 cm3 molecule-1 s-1 resulting in a unitless number. This yields a
slope that is equal to the OH + DMS rate constant, kDMS, divided by 10-12 cm3 molecule-1 s-1.
This modification allows for a direct comparison of the two reference compound/DMS data
9
sets. The slope of combined data, as shown in Figure 1, results in a hydroxyl radical
bimolecular rate constant, kDMS, of (1.46 ± 0.04) x 10-12 cm3 molecule-1 s-1. The data points
at the origin are experimental points because pre-irradiation, t = 0, data showed no
detectable loss of DMS or reference. The error in the rate constant stated above is the 95%
confidence level from the random uncertainty in the slope. Incorporating the uncertainties
associated with the reference rate constants (± 25%) used to derive the OH + DMS rate
constant yields a final value for kDMS of (1.5 ± 0.4) x 10-12 cm3 molecule-1 s-1. Assuming an
[OH] =
1 x 106 molecules cm-3, the atmospheric (1/e) lifetime calculated for DMS is 190 hours. The
observed OH + DMS rate constant is in excellent agreement with previously measured kDMS
= 1.4 ± 0.6 x 10-12 cm3 molecule-1s-1 [17], and with kDMS = 1.15 x 10-12 cm3 molecule-1 s-1
calculated using structure–activity relationships (SAR) [18].
3.2 OH + DMS Reaction Products
The reaction products observed from the initial OH + DMS hydrogen abstraction are
consistent with previously observed hydroxyl radical reaction mechanisms for oxygenated
organic species [1–4]. Typically, the oxygenated organic parent compound reacts with OH
to subsequently generate other oxygenated organic products. For DMS, the OH + DMS
reaction products observed were: monomethyl succinate (MMS,
CH3OC(=O)CH2CH2C(=O)OH) and a secondary product, formic acid (FA, HOC(=O)H).
The specific results for each of these products are described below.
Typically, the loss of the parent compound is plotted against the formation of
products generating a straight line with a slope equal to the product yield. However,
because
10
Figure 1. Dimethyl succinate reaction with methyl ethyl ketone and diethyl ketone. Dimethyl succinate relative rate plot with methyl ethyl ketone (ν), and diethyl ketone ( ) as reference compounds. The OH + DMS rate constant, kDMS, measured is 1.46 ± 0.04 x 10-12 cm3 molecule-1 s-1.
the OH + DMS reaction products could react with OH, the observed product concentrations
have to be corrected for OH + reaction product reactions. This correction, F, has been
described in detail [19, 20] and has the following form:
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.35
0.4
0.45
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3
{ln([Ref]o/[Ref]t]/kRef}*10-12cm3molec-1s-1
ln([D
MS]
o/[D
MS]
t)
METHYL ETHYL KETONE
DIETHYL KETONE
11
00
0
[DMS][DMS]
[DMS][DMS]
[DMS][DMS]
1 x
)( =
-
- -)( tk
kt
t
DMS
PDMS
DMSPk
kkF
II
kDMS is the OH + DMS rate constant, and kP is the rate constant for the reaction of OH with
reaction product. The measured value for kP was used when possible, but kP was calculated
using SAR [18] when no measured value was available in the literature. F, the correction
factor, was multiplied by the product concentration data to account for OH + product
reactions and improve the accuracy of product yield determinations.
3.3 Monomethyl Succinate (MMS, CH3OC(=O)CH2CH2C(=O)OH)
Using GC/FID, a peak at retention time = 17.7 min was observed to increase with
each exposure to light when performing OH + DMS reaction product experiments. This
product was hypothesized to be monomethyl succinate (MMS), which was verified by
GC/MS/FTIR. Verification was performed by placing 10 mL of a 10% wt. solution of MMS
and water into a 100-L Teflon® bag, heating the bag and chamber to 30oC for 24 hours, and
then sampling as described above. A small solitary peak with the same retention time as the
product peak observed in the product yield experiments verified MMS identification. The
low vapor pressure of MMS made quantification difficult. Instead, the DMS calibration
factor multiplied by 0.75 was used to determine MMS yield (three non-carbonyl carbons in
MMS compared to four non-carbonyl carbons in DMS, assuming C=O groups do not
contribute to the FID signal). With this assumption, a 2.17 + 0.25% MMS yield from OH +
DMS reaction was observed. The rate constant for OH + MMS,
12
1.95 x 10-12 cm3 molecule-1 s-1 (calculated using SAR [18]), was used for kP in eq. 7 and
resulted in an average [MMS] correction of 24% (maximum correction 43%).
Figure 2 is a plot of the loss of parent compound, DMS, against the corrected
formation of product, MMS. It should be noted that the corrected product yield exhibited a
linear concentration profile. The lack of curvature strongly suggests that no unusual side
reactions generated or removed the primary reaction product. The reported error in the
product yield is the 95% confidence level from the random uncertainty in the slope of this
plot.
Figure 2. Plot of monomethyl succinate formed versus DMS reacted. The slope of the linear least squares analysis with 95% confidence interval is 0.022 ± 0.003.
The MMS yield was lower than expected since SAR predicts fairly equal hydroxyl
radical hydrogen abstraction at the two distinct sites [18]. MMS is highly water soluble and
0
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
0.07
0 1 2 3
DMS Reacted (ppm)
Mon
o m
ethy
l suc
cina
te F
orm
ed
(ppm
)
13
oxygenated, which could lead to a significant portion of MMS sticking to the chamber
walls. To check for MMS wall losses, a typical product yield experiment was performed
with a variation in the sampling technique. The chamber was deflated by vacuum until
almost empty (the walls did not touch), partly inflated with dry compressed air, and rinsed
three times with 50 mL portions of methanol. The rinses were collected in a round-bottom
flask, concentrated to 5 mL, and analyzed by liquid injection onto a GC-FID/MS. Traces of
MMS and DMS were detected because the chamber was not completely evacuated to
prevent the walls from touching, but the results demonstrated no evidence of MMS sticking
to the walls nor were other peaks detected.
Product experiments were repeated using GC/MS/FTIR, 2, 4-dinitrophenylhydrazine
(DNPH) derivatization (method described in experimental methods), and GC/MS/MS
(where samples were directly introduced into the mass spectrometer source). None of these
experiments altered the previously observed product yield of MMS.
The apparent “low” MMS yield observed is consistent with previous literature. In
the experimental determination of the OH rate constant for dimethyl adipate (DBE-6,
CH3OC(=O)CH2CH2CH2CH2C(=O)OCH3) it was determined that the experimental
kOH(DBE-6) was two times higher than the calculated kOH(DBE-6) using SAR [17]. In this
study, the authors hypothesize that the two central –CH2– groups in DBE-6 are
“underestimated” by current SAR techniques [17]. They conclude that for C–H bonds β to a
carbonyl (C=O) and to an ester (C(=O)OR) there is an approximate three-fold enhancement
in the OH radical H-atom abstraction. This β-enhancement was not incorporated in the SAR
estimation method developed by Kwok and Atkinson [6], but neighboring functional group
influence on OH rate constant estimation is now being addressed by the atmospheric
14
research community. A new SAR calculation incorporating neighboring-group effects by
Neeb [21] uses “an extended set of group rate constants.” The results of these new
calculations indicate that, overall, only “10% of the molecules show deviations larger than
50%” from experimental values and that “ethers and ketones are in better agreement with
experimental data” than with the Kwok and Atkinson SAR calculation [6].
This β-enhancement may therefore also influence the actual products of OH +
compound. In a Tuazon et al [22] study of OH + dimethyl glutarate (DBE-5,
CH3OC(=O)CH2CH2CH2C(=O)OCH3), monomethyl glutarate was observed as one of the
major products at a yield of 34 ± 16%. The formation of monomethyl glutarate is due to H-
atom abstraction at the central –CH2–, which happens to be β to two ester groups on either
side. With the possibility that there is OH reactivity enhancements at such sites, it can be
suggested that the yield of monomethyl glutarate is higher than would be expected from
normal SAR calculations, perhaps by a factor of three.
Dimethyl succinate does not have a central -CH2- group that is simply β to an ester
group as with DBE-5 and DBE-6, instead the -CH2- groups are on one side β and on the
other side α to an ester group. Therefore the central -CH2- groups in DMS do not see the β-
enhancement as do DBE-5 and DBE-6. Without the enhancement reactivity at the central
–CH2– groups, and perhaps due to steric hindrance, there is less H-atom abstraction at these
two groups compared to DBE-5. Because the mechanism for producing MMS requires
abstraction from one of these central -CH2- groups, one would then expect a much lower
yield of MMS, perhaps 1/3 less than the 34 ± 16% monomethyl glutarate yield from DBE-6.
Thus the 2.17 ± 0.25% yield of MMS is supported theoretically and experimentally.
15
3.4 Formic Acid (FA, HOC(=O)H)
Using a Finnigan Thermoquest GC/Q (MS/MS) and through direct injection of a
cryogenically trapped 1.3-mL gas sample, MS analyses were performed on pre-photolyzed
and photolyzed chamber contents as described above. Spectral subtraction (photolyzed
minus pre-photolyzed) resulted in a large MS ion peak at m/z 46. Further analysis attributed
this peak to formic acid (FA).
FA has poor response using FID and it cannot be chromatographed using a Restek
RTX-1 column, which was used to determine the OH rate constant for DMS and the product
yield of MMS; therefore, a Restek Stabilwax column was placed on a GC/MS and product
studies were conducted as described previously. It was observed that FA’s concentration
was not stable in duplicate runs but always increased for the second sample collection.
Experiments were then conducted where the chamber was photolyzed for 60 sec. and then
GC/MS samples were collected and analyzed every 30 minutes until FA appeared and
stabilized. Each experiment verified that after an induction time, FA was formed, continued
to linearly form for a period of time, and then remained constant, all in the dark after an
initial 60-second photolysis (Figure 3). The formic acid “yield” was approximately unity as
a FA molecule was generated from each DMS molecule consumed. These experiments
strongly suggest that formic acid is a secondary product of a significant primary product.
3.5 Nitrate/Nitrite Products
Nitrate/nitrite product formation has been observed previously in the reaction of
dimethyl glutarate (DBE-5, CH3OC(=O)CH2CH2CH2(O=)COCH3) and OH [22], thus
experiments were conducted to determine possible nitrate/nitrite products from OH + DMS.
16
Figure 3. Formic acid formation over time after initial 60 second photolysis of 3.0 ppm formic acid, 1.9 ppm nitric oxide, and 40 ppm methyl nitrite.
Excess nitric oxide (NO) and nitrogen dioxide (NO2) were added to the chamber (containing
DMS, MN, and NO, concentrations mentioned previously) either before or after photolysis.
Excess NO and NO2 should drive the formation of nitrate/nitrite products if the reaction
takes place. Methyl nitrite photolysis creates nitrate and nitrite products that are observed
by the GC-FID and GC/MS/FTIR systems in our laboratory. However, in these
nitrate/nitrite “forcing” experiments, GC-FID experimental results showed no increase in
any “new” product peaks. Also, GC/MS/MS showed no indication of additional products.
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
0 100 200 300 400
Time (min)
Form
atio
n of
For
mic
Aci
d (p
pm)
Run #1 Run #2
17
4.0 DISCUSSION
OH reacts with dimethyl succinate (DMS) by hydrogen abstraction. DMS is a large
symmetrical molecule with two distinct sites for possible H-abstraction.
CH3 – O – C(=O) – CH2 – CH2 – C(=O) – O – CH3 I II II I
Structure I
Structure–activity relationships [18] indicate a slight favoring for reaction at site II (SAR for
site I = 0.218 x 10-12 cm3 molecule-1 s-1 and for site II = 0.356 x 10-12 cm3 molecule-1 s-1). As
opposed to producing large product yields, which would lend evidence to its being the
favored site of reaction, it appears that DMS decomposes when attacked at site II. The
products produced from reaction at site II appear to be unstable and quickly react to form
secondary, small molecules such as formic acid. There is a significantly larger yield for
these small molecules from site II than for products from site I, which is evidence for H-
abstraction to preferentially take place at site II. This would be consistent with SAR
estimates. Despite the uncertainty of the OH reaction mechanism, there is agreement
between the SAR calculation (1.15 x 10-12 cm3 molecule-1 s-1) and the measured kDMS
(1.5 ± 0.4 x 10-12 , this work, and 1.4 ± 0.6 x 10-12 cm3 molecule-1s-1 [17].
Depending on the nature of the radical formed by reaction at site I, monomethyl
succinate (MMS, CH3OC(=O)CH2CH2(=O)COH) may be formed by α-ester rearrangement
[23]. For reaction site I:
CH3OC(=O)CH2CH2(O=)COCH3 + OH CH3OC(=O)CH2CH2(O=)COCH2● + H2O (1) CH3OC(=O)CH2CH2(O=)COCH2● + O2 + NO CH3OC(=O)CH2CH2(O=)COCH2O● + NO2 (via an RO2 intermediate) (2) CH3OC(=O)CH2CH2(O=)COCH2O● [CH3OC(=O)CH2CH2C●(OH)OC(=O)H] CH3OC(=O)CH2CH2(=O)COH (MMS) + HC●O (via an α-ester rearrangement) (3)
18
Formic acid (FA, HOC(=O)H) is a secondary product possibly formed via an
unstable intermediate. Methyl glyoxylate (MG, CH3OC(=O)C(=O)H) is easily polymerized
and is not expected to be seen via gas chromatography.
For reaction site II:
CH3OC(=O)CH2CH2(O=)COCH3 + OH CH3OC(=O)C●HCH2(O=)COCH3 + H2O (4) CH3OC(=O)C●HCH2(O=)COCH3 + O2 + NO CH3OC(=O)C(O●)HCH2(O=)COCH3 + NO2 (via an RO2 intermediate) (5) CH3OC(=O)C(O●)HCH2(O=)COCH3 CH3OC(=O)C(=O)H (MG) + ●CH2C(=O)OCH3
(deecomposition) (6) CH3OC(=O)C●HCH2(O=)COCH3 (Intermediate) Unknown + HOC(=O)H (FA) (via unknown intermediate) (7) CH3O(O=)C● CO2 + ●CH3 (8)
The radical product in Reaction 6 will continue to react: ●CH2C(=O)CH3 + O2 + NO ●OCH2C(=O)CH3 + NO2 (via an RO2 intermediate) (9) ●OCH2C(=O)CH3 H2C(=O) + ●C(=O)OCH3 (10) ●C(=O)OCH3 CO2 + ●CH3 (11) Formic acid (FA) is produced as a secondary product via an unknown mechanism at
this time. The rest of DMS decomposition product (Reactions 9–11) will subsequently
produce CO2 and H2CO, neither of which can be monitored due to high background levels
and/or their production from the photolysis of methyl nitrite. The slow rise and plateau of
FA suggests that there is a limited source of the FA precursor. The fact that the observed
[FA] is approximately equivalent to [DMS] lost to reaction with OH also suggests an initial
product that breaks down resulting in FA.
19
Another possible decomposition pathway of Reaction 6 could produce methyl (2-
formyl) acetate (MFA, HC(=O)CH2(O=)COCH3):
CH3OC(=O)C(O●)HCH2(O=)COCH3 HC(=O)CH2(O=)COCH3 (MFA) + ●C(=O)OCH3 (12)
●C(=O)OCH3 CO2 + ●CH3 (13)
MFA is similar in structure to ethyl (2-formyl) acetate (EFA,
HC(=O)CH2(O=)COCH2CH3), a product observed by this laboratory in the study of OH +
3-ethoxypropionate [24]. Therefore if MFA were produced, it should be detected by
GC/MS. Close examination of the product data revealed no evidence of the formation of
MFA.
The proposed OH + DMS reaction mechanism is shown in Figure 4.
20
Figure 4. Proposed reaction mechanism for hydroxyl radical with dimethyl succinate. Major products are in bold typeface.
Acknowledgment
The authors gratefully thank Dr. Jean Renard for helpful technical discussions.
O
O
O
O O
O
O
O
.
O 2 , NO
NO 2
HO
O
O
O
Monomethyl Succinate, 2%
O
O
O
O
.
O 2 , NO
NO 2
Dimethyl Succinate
O
O
Methyl Glyoxylate
HO
O
Formic Acid
O Intermediate
21
5.0 REFERENCES
1. J.R. Wells, F.L. Wiseman, D.C. Williams, J.S. Baxley, D.F. Smith, Int. J. Chem. Kinet., 28, 475 (1996). 2. D.F. Smith, C.D. McIver, T.E. Kleindienst, Int. J. Chem. Kinet, 27, 453 (1995). 3. D.F. Smith, T.E. Kleindienst, E.E. Hudgens, C.D. McIver, J.J. Bufalini, Int. J. Chem. Kinet., 24, 199 (1992). 4. T.J. Wallington, J.M. Andino, A.R. Potts, S.J. Rudy, W.O. Siegl, Z. Zhang, M.J. Kurylo, R.E. Huie, Environ. Sci. Technol., 27, 98 (1993). 5. M. Veillerot, P. Foster, R.Guillermo, J.C. Galloo, Int. J. Chem. Kinet. 28, 235 (1996). 6. E.S.C. Kwok, R. Atkinson, Atmos. Environ., 29, 1685 (1995). 7. W.P.L. Carter, J. Air and Waste Man. Assoc., 44, 881 (1994). 8. J.H. Seinfeld, Science, 243, 745 (1989). 9. M.S. Bergin, A.G. Russell, J.B. Milford, Environ. Sci. Technol. 1998, 32, 694. 10. R. Atkinson, W.P.L. Carter, A.M. Winer, J.N. Pitts, Jr., J. Air Pol.Control, 31, 1090 (1981). 11. L.N. O’rji and D.A. Stone, Int. J. Chem Kinet., 24, 703 (1992). 12. D.C. Williams, L.N. O’rji, D.A. Stone, Int. J. Chem. Kinet., 25, 539 (1993). 13. D.F. Smith, T.E. Kleindienst, E.E. Hudgens, J.J. Bufalini, Intern J. Environ. Anal. Chem., 54, 265 (1994). 14. D.F. Smith, T.E. Kleindienst, E.E. Hudgens, J. Chromatog., 483, 431 (1989). 15. W.D. Taylor, D. Allston, M.J. Moscato, G.D. Fazekas, R. Kozlowski, G.A. Takacs, Int. J. Chem. Kinet., 12, 231 (1980). 16. R. Atkinson, J. Phys. Chem. Ref Data, Monograph No. 2, (1994). 17. S. Aschmann, R. Atkinson, Int. J. Chem. Kinet, 30, 471–474 (1998). 18. AOPWIN v1.89, SRC-AOP for Microsoft Windows, Copyright © William Meylan, 1994–1999. 19. D.F. Smith, C.D. McIver, T.E. Kleindienst, Int. J. Chem. Kinet, 27, 453 (1995).
22
20. R. Atkinson, S.M. Aschmann, W.P.L. Carter, A.M. Winer, and J.N. Pitts, Jr., J. Phys. Chem., 86, 4563 (1982). 21. P. Neeb, J. Atmos. Chem., 35, 295 (2000). 22. E. C. Tuazon, S. M. Aschmann, and R. Atkinson, Env. Sci. and Tech., 33, 2885 (1999). 23. E. C. Tuazon, S. M. Aschmann, R. Atkinson, and W. Carter, J. Phys. Chem. A, 102, 2316–2321 (1998). 24. S. Baxley, M. Henley, J.R. Wells, Int. J. Chem. Kinet., 29, 637–644 (1997).